May courts or arbitral tribunals engage in the amicable settlement of disputes between parties? More specifically, may a Singapore court or arbitral tribunal actively promote an amicable resolution of a dispute between parties? What do the inquisitorial processes mentioned in the law have to do with it?
I have set out my thoughts in an article that the German Arbitration Journal (SchiedsVZ) has just published in its September/October 2023 issue.
I’ve had the website of dahm adr overhauled. This is where I arbitrate and mediate.
Please have a look: https://www.dahm.sg.
An arbitral award made by an emergency arbitrator sitting in Singapore is enforceable in Singapore. The law is clear on this.
However, the law is less clear on foreign emergency awards. Are they enforceable in Singapore?
The Singapore Institute of Arbitrators invited me to debate the following motion: ‘This House Believes That Artificial Intelligence Will Have Replaced Arbitrators within Twenty-Five Years’. In short: can – will – algorithms replace arbitrators within a generation?
We were debating this last night. Here are my opening and closing statements.
Starting this week German lawyers have to have available a means of electronic communication developed just for them: the special electronic lawyers’ mailbox (besonderes elektronisches Anwaltspostfach or beA). The problem is, the beA is inherently insecure, which is why it seems better to avoid using it. This would include not litigating in a German court, if possible, if there’s a chance the opponent or the court will use the beA in the proceedings. This seems to be all the more indicated where there’s a risk of snoopery and foul play by opponents or third parties, or where the stakes are high – and when aren’t they?
I don’t like how we use the term guerrilla tactics in international arbitration. Referring to guerrilla disapprovingly implies methods of traditional warfare are alright. Artillery or old-school tactical formations – okay. Sneaky ambushes or hit-and-run attacks – not okay.
This really very long and quasi-academic post is based on a speech I gave to MBA students of the Management Development Institute of Singapore sometime in 2016. Subject: how do we resolve disputes and what borders, geographical or otherwise, do we cross in doing so? Borders and otherwise, geddit, I was talking about dispute resolution in cyberspace and algorithms.
Here’s my piece on Singapore’s ratification of this Convention on Peter Bert’s dispute resolution blog.
Anfang 2015 wurde der Singapurische Internationale Handelsgerichtshof (Singapore International Commercial Court oder SICC) eröffnet. Das Gericht ist als Teil des singapurischen Supreme Court für internationale Handelssachen zuständig und vereint schiedsgerichtliche und gerichtliche Elemente. Singapur will damit seine Position als internationales Streitschlichtungszentrum ausbauen.
Parties to a legal dispute may believe they understand each other’s legalese or the legal ‘etiquette’ applicable. When really they don’t. This may happen when a party from a civil law jurisdiction sets foot in a common law environment, or vice versa. In international arbitration proceedings, for example.
Apparently the High Court of Singapore had to decide a case just like this.
International arbitration has a problem: proceedings that take too long and are too expensive. To help solve this we should combine the best aspects of civil law and common law procedure better.
This is my speech at the In-house Congress in Jakarta, Indonesia, on 23 April 2014. It was on why it’s important your commercial contracts contain an arbitration clause that works well.
Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén